It seems Fred has it in for me - whether this is because he shares the views of the BCE/CE lobby and so is unable to step back and be neutral or because he still has it in for me over the CheeseDreams incident, I don't know. But it's getting out of hand.
Why can't the ArbCom just stop all the content argument? It's that (along with attempts to delete [[2005 English cricket season]]) that turned me off WP and made it no longer fun. That's why jguk isn't there editing anymore - because it's no longer fun, not because I am trying to use my editing absence as part of any greater ploy.
The content wars continue apace though. Those who oppose my view are trying to get ArbCom to decide I am wrong to espouse my view - though they have even more forcefully than me tried to impose their views over a much longer period than me. But, hey - that's political correctness for you - the PC lobby are not noted for their tolerance and understanding of others' views. It's coming to something when edits such as http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Msha%27sha%27iya&diff=0 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1879_in_archaeology&diff=prev&... are held against someone! I struggle to find how anyone finds those edits unreasonable - indeed, they very much do put usual formation of dates into the article! However, Fred and Jayjg think these edits are so bad as to actually be reprehensible! Surely this whole ArbCom thing has already gone beyond reason!
There is a straightforward question behind all this that the ArbCom has not even addressed - what should happen when some users try to implement a failed proposal and are reverted by other users?
Decide this question and leave all other issues alone (it is as unfair to admonish SouthernComfort as it is me - we were both hastened along quite deliberately by Slrubenstein as it is).
Jguk
--------------------------------- How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos. Get Yahoo! Photos